Talk:Rambots
List My list is very small, so if anybody could either add robots to the list or just list them here so we can discuss them, that would be helpful. Jimlaad43(talk) 21:50, September 3, 2013 (UTC) :Would robots with only a wedge, such as Cunning Plan, be counted as rambots? Because their primary form of attack is to ram, so to speak. Combatwombat555 (talk) 22:24, September 3, 2013 (UTC) ::The problem with that is robots like Roadblock had wedges designed to tip opponents over, rather than ram. Jimlaad43(talk) 05:40, September 4, 2013 (UTC) Grammar I've changed this once and it's been changed back. I was going to change it again, but I'm not completely certain I'm right, so I'm asking here instead. Regarding the trivia point: Rambots were often invertible, so the effectiveness of opponents' flippers and lifters '''were' reduced.'' I think the highlighted were should be was, because it's referring to the term the effectiveness, so it would be the effectiveness was. I'm pretty sure the rest of the sentence in between doesn't change what the word should be. Am I getting this completely wrong? Christophee (talk) 13:22, September 6, 2013 (UTC) :Was doesn't sound right to me. Oh, and I think it becomes were because there is more than one subject, in this case, lifters and flippers. If it was just lifters or just flippers, then it'd be was. RelicRaider (talk) 15:14, September 6, 2013 (UTC) ::But it's the effectiveness that was reduced. Effectiveness is not plural. Christophee (talk) 16:15, September 6, 2013 (UTC) :::Looks like RA2 has removed the sentence anyway, so it's immaterial now. Christophee (talk) 16:42, September 6, 2013 (UTC) ::::I know it's immaterial now, but from all I know about grammar due to my degree I'm 95% sure it should have been was had we kept that sentence. Helsed (talk) 18:01, September 6, 2013 (UTC) :::::I am delighted that one person agrees with me. Christophee (talk) 18:34, September 6, 2013 (UTC) :I don't know, reading it aloud, was just doesn't sound right to me. If it was "the effectiveness of lifters was decreased" and vice versa for flippers, then it sounds fine, but with both in there it just doesn't sound right to me. RelicRaider (talk) 18:28, September 6, 2013 (UTC) ::The was/were doesn't apply to the 'lifters' or 'flippers' nouns, but to the 'effectiveness' noun, so it makes no difference to how many things in the sentence the 'effectiveness' applies. Saying 'effectiveness were' makes no sense in any circumstance. Christophee (talk) 18:34, September 6, 2013 (UTC) :::I just think it sounds wrong, effectiveness may be the subject, but the two described, flippers and lifters make the use of was sound wrong. Lets say it was power of lifters and flippers, it would sound wrong too as was. Honestly think it would be we're and I won't be changing my judgement, just because was doesn't sound right to me, and I'm pretty stubborn :P RelicRaider (talk) 19:43, September 6, 2013 (UTC) ::::Let's just stop now. There's really no point in disagreeing when the senetence is no longer on the article. Christophee (talk) 20:09, September 6, 2013 (UTC) :I just hope a similar sentence doesn't come up again on another article. :P RelicRaider (talk) 20:24, September 6, 2013 (UTC) Panzer Mk I agree that Panzer Mk 4 counts as a rambot, but I'm not so sure about Panzer Mk 2. It handled robots like The Revolutionist, Spartacus, Tornado etc by flipping them over. Should we change its entry to Panzer Mk 4, or leave it alone? [[User:ToastUltimatum|'Toast']][[User talk:ToastUltimatum|'Ultimatum']] 01:20, September 7, 2013 (UTC) :Yeah, that's probably the most accurate thing to do. RA2; aka Resetti's Replicas. (My Talk) 02:22, September 7, 2013 (UTC) Justification We need a more stringent criteria for what makes a robot a rambot. Please convince me why Infinity and Nemesis - two-wheeled bots with active weapons - are classified as rammers. RA2; aka Resetti's Replicas. (My Talk) 17:53, September 17, 2013 (UTC) Restructure This page puts Nemesis -an incredibly slow 2wd bot with a retracting spear - in the same weapon category as Robot The Bruce. In addition, the weaponless robots that qualify as "rambots" have been subjectively cherrypicked; if Infinity qualifies because its weapon wasn't working, then there's no reason not to include all the involuntary rambots, like Plunderbird 5, Meshugggah, Sater, Delldog, Project 2 Hex'em, and Corkscrew. Here's what I propose; we change the "Static Blades" umbrella to "Static Weapons" so that Wedges and this page can be incorporated. As for this page, I think it would be easier to just call it "weaponless robots" and only include robots who never featured an active weapon, or were modified to be weaponless after their weapon broke. This will mean that every occurence of "Rambots" needs to be removed, but I think it's for the best; I was never a fan of its ill defined categorization, or its puerility. What do people think? RA2; aka Resetti's Replicas. (My Talk) 20:49, September 17, 2013 (UTC) :The only problem with removing the name "Rambots" is that is is a heavily referenced term in both the show and discussions. Jimlaad43(talk) 20:20, September 17, 2013 (UTC) ::Is it though? I can find no occurrence of the term on any page prior to September 2013. Can you remember any robot on the show that was referred to by the builders as a "rambot?" Even if so, it doesn't change the fact that the category is messy and being misused. RA2; aka Resetti's Replicas. (My Talk) 20:49, September 17, 2013 (UTC) :::I couldn't agree more with your suggestion, RA2. As I said on the Infinity talk page, I never liked the idea of this page, and your idea would be much easier to implement properly as there won't be the same ambiguity over which robots qualify. Christophee (talk) 23:38, September 17, 2013 (UTC) Sorry to ask this on a talk page that seems to be long-dead, but shouldn't S.M.I.D.S.Y be here? 09:37, August 18, 2016 (UTC) Criteria for not being a rambot I see RA2 made efforts to change this a few years ago and I'm going to reignite the debate and propose a very strict set of guidelines on what constitutes a rambot. *No active weapons. Even if s robot had six wheel drive and doesn't ever use its weapon, that's a choice. It'd be like considering Firestorm 3 a static wedge based on the third place playoff. *Spikes yes, spears no. Removing Mr Nasty, Spikasaurus and 101 - robots that have a weapon designed to puncture. That makes them more than simple rammers. A rammer should bring body contact into body contact, not weapon contact to body contact. Otherwise we might as well call Hypno Disc a rambot. *Remember that all robots are designed to push. This page exists to cover those not designed to do anything else. Toon Ganondorf (t ' 01:38, December 17, 2016 (UTC) :Are you saying that Mr Nasty, Spikasaurus and 101 are rambots, or are not rambots? One of those robots has an active weapon, and two do not, so I'm confused. Otherwise this sounds fair. For example, Shockwave still used its lifter against M.R. Speed Squared. [[User:ToastUltimatum|'Toast]][[User talk:ToastUltimatum|'Ultimatum']] 02:16, December 17, 2016 (UTC) :Mr. Nasty, Spikasaurus and 101 are not rambots, because they are designed to pierce, not ram. I've removed a few indisputably not rambot ones, but left any contentious ones pending discussion. Toon Ganondorf (t ' 02:18, December 17, 2016 (UTC) ::Now this, I disagree with. Mr Nasty and Spikasaurus can only penetrate armour by ramming, otherwise known as "driving into other robots at force". How blunt a robot's shape is doesn't matter when they're attacking through brute force without the use of a moving weapon. 101 is debatable because their spike did actually move. Surely a robot with a static piercing spike is MORE appropriate of the term 'rambot' than a simple wedge. [[User:ToastUltimatum|'Toast]][[User talk:ToastUltimatum|'Ultimatum']] 02:27, December 17, 2016 (UTC) ::::This goes back to what I said before; all robots are designed to ram at some point, but others rely on it more. We already have pages dedicated to spears and the benefits of doing so. What benefit is there to leaving them here? Do you really think that the strengths of a rambot can be applied equally to Series 4 Tornado and Spikasaurus? Toon Ganondorf (t ' 02:32, December 17, 2016 (UTC) :Now, the issue here is, I don't see any of the logic behind this, or the robots you've removed. These are robots that have weapons, yes, but they won fights primarily by the use of ramming. Comparing the likes of, say, King B or Infinity to the likes of Behemoth doesn't really help your case because Behemoth primarily, actively and frequently used its weapon. So did Hypno-Disc, so that's not a good counter. Robots like 101, King B, Infinity, Shockwave, etc, got most of their strengths from their pushing ability and ramming. CrashBash (talk) 08:10, December 17, 2016 (UTC) ::Also, by your logic, almost none of the robots actually listed would be rambots. Not even Storm 2, except the original X2 version. Your "no active weapons" rule pretty much screws the entire list over. CrashBash (talk) 08:16, December 17, 2016 (UTC) :::Honestly, I'm starting to think that with the pages for spikes, ramming blades and invertible robots, this page is pretty redundant. All the content is very general anyway and pretty much boils down to having six or four wheel drive. It might be worth just deleting the whole page to avoid the argument. :::As for Shockwave, it is clearly just a lift/scoop robot that happens to have better pushing power than Behemoth. I don't see any valid reason for one to be considered a "rambot" whilst the other is not. Why is Infinity a rambo but Kan Opener isn't? Why is King Buxton a rambot when Panic Attack isn't? Why is Growler a rambot when Shunt isn't? Those robots may have chosen not to use their active weapons, but that choice was theirs. Not going to base a page off roboteers choosing to use their weapons or not. :::As for Storm 2, that's clearly a rambot in Extreme 2, and I think one could make an exception for it given all of what we know. 'Toon Ganondorf (t ''' 08:42, December 17, 2016 (UTC) :::::Once again, that's terrible logic. Behemoth and Kan-Opener are not rambots because they primarily use their active weapons to attack, not ram. CrashBash (talk) 08:57, December 17, 2016 (UTC) ::::Shockwave '''is a rambot, designed to push robots around. Sometimes it can be prudent to change the criteria, rather than eliminate robots. By your logic, Tornado and Storm 2's active weapons means that the two robots this page was created for primarily are ineligible. See the problem? Jimlaad43(talk) 08:44, December 17, 2016 (UTC) :::::::Designed to push and designed to ram are very different things. All robots are designed to push. As for Tornado and Storm 2, I want to make it clear that they are perfectly eligible because they have interchangeable active weapons but remain rambots in essence. Unlike Infinity, who has a vertical crusher, Growler, who has jaws and Blade, who has a lawnmower blade. Unless someone wants to make a case for their inclusion, please do so seperately. Toon Ganondorf (t ' 08:49, December 17, 2016 (UTC) ::::::::Nope. By your own rules, they can't be rambots because they have active weapons. CrashBash (talk) 08:53, December 17, 2016 (UTC) ::::::Panzer Mk has an active weapon, therefore it can't be a rambot. Steg-O-Saw-Us has an active weapon, therefore it can't be a rambot. Storm 2 has ''three active weapons, therefore it can't be a rambot. That's right, Storm 2, by your definition, is not a rambot. CrashBash (talk) 08:51, December 17, 2016 (UTC) Crash, the way discussion goes is that we work with each other. If you point out a weakness, I amend and see if we are more acceptable. I thought it was clear that I'm watering down my suggestion of "no active weapons". Let me clarify it again, Tornado and Storm 2 are obviously included here. Now that my definition has changed, what else is wrong? 'Toon Ganondorf (t ' 09:00, December 17, 2016 (UTC) :Well then, if you're counting Storm 2 and Tornado, then the likes of 101, King Buxton and Shockwave should be included too. I'll give you some leeway with Infinity and maybe Mr Nasty, but the other three there's no reason to say they're not rambots. CrashBash (talk) 09:27, December 17, 2016 (UTC) ::What makes Shockwave any different from GBH, Behemoth, Barbaric Response or any robot with a lifting weapon that also pushes? What makes 101 any different from Slicer or Mortis or Panzer? What makes King Buxton any different from Panic Attack? 'Toon Ganondorf (t ' 09:31, December 17, 2016 (UTC) :::I'm trying to make a point here, TG, please stop posting whilst I am. I've already explained why that doesn't work to you, at least three times. The issue I'm having here is that you seem to disclude them just because they have active weapons, which by your initial claim would have rendered Storm 2 and Tornado not rambots, but now that you've laxed that claim, there's really no argument to say those three aren't. Besides, by your logic, what makes Tornado different from Tetanus Booster? CrashBash (talk) 09:32, December 17, 2016 (UTC) ::::Well whilst I laxed the no active weapons rule so Tornado and Storm 2 were included, but that doesn't mean I think any robot with an active weapon can't be excluded from the page because then we might as well list all of them as rambots. 'Toon Ganondorf (t ' 09:36, December 17, 2016 (UTC) :::::No, because I have already explained to you why your claim doesn't work. 101 is a rambot, Slicer is not. King Buxton is a rambot, Panic Attack is not. Shockwave is a rambot, Behemoth is not, all for reasons I have already explained at least three times. CrashBash (talk) 09:38, December 17, 2016 (UTC) But why are they not rambots? All of them ram into their opponents. You can't just say "they aren't rambots" when what is a rambot is the very issue we're discussing. Shockwave uses its weapon in all of its battles, so why does the "always uses its active weapon" argument apply to Behemoth but not Shockwave? Heck, SMIDSY didn't use its jaws that much, does that make it a rambot? Are you really pushing for a page where we have to analyse every single robot and whether they used their active weapon a certain number of times to be considered a rambot? 'Toon Ganondorf (t ' 09:51, December 17, 2016 (UTC) :No, I have already explained to you exactly why they're not rambots, at least three times, and you've just ignored that claim. I hate the fact I'm having to say this a fourth time, but I guess I'll have to - the reason those robots are not rambots is because '''they actively use their weapons and those are the main factors used to gain them wins. Otherwise, we could just go back to saying Tornado isn't a rambot again because it uses at least one of its weapons in all of its battles, in part due to the likes of the drum and chain flail being continually on. But we don't do that because Tornado won its battles almost solely due to its ramming. Same with Shockwave (and by extension 101 and King Buxton). And for the record, yes, I would personally consider S.M.I.D.S.Y. a rambot, partly because of the reasons you stated, but partly because that was its go-to method of beating its opponents. CrashBash (talk) 09:56, December 17, 2016 (UTC) :Why a robot wins battles is not a good enough reason to determine what is a rambot and what isn't. How will you classify new robots as rambots until you've seen them fight? Tornado was a clear rambot in Series 4, as well as whenever it had the charity scoop or spike. Anytime it had the drum it was a drum robot that happened to have exceptionally good power behind its motors. :Secondly, look at the strengths and weaknesses. Advantage is "usually durable" - Spikasaurus, All Torque and Velocirippa are not durable. "Accelerate quickly" - not 101, that's for sure, and definitely not Scutter's Revenge. Disadvantage "cannot defend self if they don't have a weapon" - well you're arguing for a half dozen robots with perfectly high functioning weapons to be included on the page. "Broke down from torque" - doesn't apply to low accelerator pushers like 101. "Need active weapons" - well if you an an active weapon, you pretty much cease to be a rambot (with exception of Storm 2 and Tornado). That's the point I'm trying to make above all else. :This page was clearly designed to discuss the merits of a Tornado/Storm 2 design. That's great. Let's focus on that, and remove the others. A definition of "rambot" needs to be more explicit than "rams opponents". Toon Ganondorf (t ' 10:24, December 17, 2016 (UTC) ::I think you're missing the definition of "usually". I mean, the strength of a horizontal flywheel is that they can cause severe damage. It's all right there on the page. Now look at Mazakari. It had an absolutely miserable spinning disc that did absolutely nothing...but would you thereby conclude it wasn't a horizontal flywheel? I don't think so. And what about Mantis? It has an absolutely feeble crusher that can't actually crush anything, but it's still classed as a vertical crusher. Spikasaurus, All Torque, Velocirippa, 101 and Scutter's Revenge are all rambots, no question about it. That's what they are meant to do. And, again, why are Storm 2 and Tornado exceptions? The only argument I can see you making is "because I say so", and if I'm not allowed to make it, surely you aren't either. And this especially doesn't do you any favours considering you jumped the gun on this whole thing. ::Also, ''how is Tornado a "clear rambot" in Series 4? It had a spike. An active weapon. Therefore, it's not a rambot by your logic. It's certainly not a "clear one" by your logic...what makes it any different from 101? CrashBash (talk) 10:44, December 17, 2016 (UTC) Firstly, I would like to apologise for causing confusion as a result of my recent edits to this page. I had initially added robots like 101, Blade, Growler and the 2016 Shockwave to the table because they were already listed in the Rambots category, and I wanted to make more consistent links between the Rambots page and the Rambots category. Nevertheless, I understand Toon Ganondorf’s reasoning for their removal from the page, and support the introduction of a clearer and more stringent set of guidelines regarding what should constitute a rambot. Personally, I consider a rambot to be a robot that is designed to use brute force as its main method of offense, with a powerful drive system and either limited or no weapons. In essence, Tornado and Storm 2 were designed to rely on brute force from the outset, and their active weapons were only chosen to minimise their effect on the robot's ramming capability (Tornado) or added to satisfy the demands of the producers (Storm 2). I would also assume that others like Robot the Bruce, Scutter’s Revenge, Steg-O-Saw-Us and Tricerabot were also conceived with similar principles in mind, whereas most of the ones that have been removed/contested, like Blade or Infinity, had completely different design goals and happened to rely on pushing power when their own weapons proved unreliable or ineffective. The only problem I can see, as RA2 once pointed out, is that ‘rambot’ doesn’t appear to be a common term used to describe robots classified as such. As far as I am aware, only Team Storm have explicitly used ‘rambot’ in reference to Storm 2 on their (now archived) website, and unless anyone can let me know of other cases where this has happened, it might end up making things much more problematic when it comes to classifying which robots are – and are not - rambots. VulcansHowl (talk) 12:11, December 17, 2016 (UTC) :I'm beginning to wonder if this page should even be a thing if it's going to cause this much confusion and debate. In my mind, the likes of 101, King Buxton and, yes, even Shockwave, will always be rambots because they relied so heavily on ramming their opponents for their victories, much like Tornado and Storm 2 did. CrashBash (talk) 12:28, December 17, 2016 (UTC) ::Honestly I'd be on board with deleting the page too. 'Toon Ganondorf (t ' 20:24, December 17, 2016 (UTC) :::I've been trying to make sense of it myself, but the fact of the matter is, we all have our own opinions on what counts as a rambot and what doesn't, and with so much potential debate, it's just not practical. CrashBash (talk) 20:27, December 17, 2016 (UTC) ::::I'm thirding deletion. "Rambot" is a highly unscientific term that has never been used outside of this wiki. It is also dependent on us trying to guess the robot drivers' intentions which we can't reliably do. '''RA2; aka Resetti's Replicas. (My Talk) 02:06, December 18, 2016 (UTC) :::::Deletion sits OK with me. [[User:ToastUltimatum|'Toast']][[User talk:ToastUltimatum|'Ultimatum']] 14:42, December 19, 2016 (UTC) ::::::I will leave this a few days for a late game surge of support but it doesn't look likely. Toon Ganondorf (t ''' 10:08, December 20, 2016 (UTC) Rambot or not Rambot I think the best way we're going to be able to figure out how to decide which robots constitute a "rambot" or not is to have a vote. For this, I've taken the list of robots marked as of VulcanHowl's last edit. That way we can all have our say and come to an agreement. CrashBash (Me) *101 - '''Arguably a rambot. It's designed with pushing in mind and lets be honest, it never relied on its spike. We have plenty of other robots with active weapons that are listed as rambots because they rely almost entirely on pushing. *Alien Destructor - Arguably a rambot *All Torque - Rambot *Anvil - Rambot *Blade - Not really a rambot. But on that note... *Cerberus - Not really a rambot either. It wasn't really made for ramming, that was just a by-product of its shape. Arguably less effective when you realise its jaws prevent anything effective. *Das Gepack - Rambot *Drillzilla - Rambot. It almost never used its claws or drill as weapons. *Golem - Rambot *Growler - Not really a rambot. That was more a by-product of his insane speed. *Infinity - Not really a rambot looking back at it. *King Buxton - Arguably a rambot using the same logic as 101. It's nothing like Panic Attack because when did it ever really use its spikes to lift an opponent? More often they were used to ram, and it had good pushing power too. *Mighty Mouse - Arguably a rambot because that was its primary attack, even though it really wasn't effective at it. Really, 101 and King Buxton was much better at ramming. *Mortis - Rambot by technicality for that one battle. *Mr Nasty - Arguably a rambot if we're counting Alien Destructor or Golem, which it's otherwise identical in design to. *Panzer Mk 4 - Arguably a rambot since its scoop was made for pushing, not flipping. *Rattus Rattus - Not really a rambot *Robot the Bruce - Rambot *Rocky-Bot-Boa - Rambot, never used its chainsaw *Rosie the Riveter - Rambot *Scutter's Revenge - Rambot *Shockwave - Rambot. Comparing it to Behemoth doesn't work. It's far more comparable to Panzer Mk 4. It way more frequently used the scoop for pushing than overturning. *Spikasaurus - Arguably a rambot for the same logic as Mr Nasty *Storm 2 - Rambot *Tornado - Rambot *Tricerabot - Rambot *Velocirippa - Arguably a rambot, see Mighty Mouse So, in total, and in my opinion, Blade, Cerberus, Growler, Infinity and Rattus Rattus don't really count, but everyone else is fine. CrashBash (talk) 14:31, December 17, 2016 (UTC) Diotoir the son of Nemesis *101 - Arguably a rambot a bit iffy on this one *Alien Destructor - Rambot if its main (and only) way of attacking is to slam itself into others it's a rambot, nothing else. *All Torque - Rambot *Anvil - Rambot *Blade - Arguably a rambot *Cerberus - Not a rambot *Das Gepack - Rambot *Drillzilla - Rambot *Golem - Rambot *Growler - Not a rambot *Infinity - Not a rambot It never was one. *King Buxton - Arguably a rambot a bit iffy *Mighty Mouse - Rambot *Mortis - Not a rambot only used the ramming blades once and that was it *Mr Nasty - Rambot as I said if it's main and only method is to bash into others then it's a rambot, no ifs or buts. *Panzer Mk 4 - Arguably a rambot *Rattus Rattus - Rambot Crash did you ever see the S.M.I.D.S.Y. battle? Rattus Rattus didn't really use its flail and instead relied on brute force by ramming its opponents to defeat them, they would have made it so fast and put spears on if they weren't going to use it for ramming purposes. *Robot the Bruce - Rambot *Rocky-Bot-Boa - Rambot *Rosie the Riveter - Rambot *Scutter's Revenge - Rambot *Shockwave - Rambot *Spikasaurus - Rambot seriously you need to argue about this?... *Storm 2 - Rambot *Tornado - Rambot *Tricerabot - Rambot *Velocirippa - Rambot Diotoir the son of nemesis (talk) 16:07, December 17, 2016 (UTC) Jonathan Pearce Quote Almost one year after the page's removal, I have stumbled upon a quote from the Extreme 2 New Blood final which might give credence to 'rambot' being officially used on the show: Make of that what you will. [[User:VulcansHowl|'Vulcans']][[User talk:VulcansHowl|'Howl']] 12:13, December 2, 2017 (UTC)